Manage your subscription

US bans ‘hormone free’ milk label

By
KURT KLEINER in
WASHINGTON DC

Dairies in the US that produce milk the old-fashioned way, without a
genetically engineered hormone, will not be able to say so on the label
unless they add a long, complicated explanation. In guidelines issued last
week, the Food and Drug Administration in Washington DC said a simple ‘hormone
free’ label would make a ‘misleading health claim’ by implying that milk
made without the hormone is healthier than milk produced with it.

Opponents of the hormone, bovine somatotrophin (BST), are already angry
that milk from cows treated with BST does not have to carry a label saying
so. Now they say the FDA has turned normal labelling practice on its head
in an attempt to ensure that one of the first commercial uses of a genetically
engineered food product is not rejected by consumers.

‘To our mind, the FDA has it exactly backwards. Farmers who want to
produce milk the old-fashioned way are going to be made to jump through
hoops,’ says Michael Hansen, a biologist with the Consumers Union, which
opposes use of the hormone.

BST controls lactation in cows. When the genetically engineered version
is injected into the animals, their milk production can increase by up to
20 per cent. The FDA, which approved the use of BST last November, says
milk produced from cows given the artificial hormone is indistinguishable
from other milk. This month, American dairy farmers were given the green
light to begin using the hormone. It is still banned in Europe.

Advertisement

The labelling guidelines issued by the FDA last week do not have the
force of law. They provide advice to states, and indicate how the FDA is
likely to interpret the law. There is now a 30-day public consultation period,
after which the guidelines could be amended.

Opponents have a number of health worries about the hormone. Their primary
concern stems from the incidence of mastitis among cows given artificial
BST, which is 79 per cent higher than normal. They fear that this will lead
farmers to use more antibiotics, which could stay in the milk and eventually
reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics against bacteria that affect humans.
Opposition groups have threatened a boycott of milk produced with BST, but
they will have a hard time carrying it out if they cannot identify such
milk.

The FDA’s guidance says that any label on cartons would have to carry
a long statement explaining that there is no advantage to BST-free milk.
The agency also says producers who want to use this label must maintain
records to prove their cows were never injected.

But that policy goes against normal practice, according to Hansen. For
example, there is no bar to advertising apples as organically grown, even
though the FDA does not consider pesticides used on apples to be harmful,
and even though it can be hard to tell an organic apple from an inorganic
one. He also points out that irradiated foods will have to be labelled as
such, despite there being no obvious health risks to the procedure.

‘They’re hiding the technology because nobody wants it. They do not
want the public to know,’ says Jeremy Rifkin, an outspoken opponent of the
biotechnology industry who is going to court to overturn the FDA’s decision
to approve the use of BST. Rifkin directs the Pure Food Campaign (see ‘Guess
what’s coming to dinner?’, New Scientist, 14 November 1992), which opposes
the use of genetic engineering of food, and says milk should be labelled.
Some stores are ignoring the FDA and declaring their milk BST-free anyway.